[Q] To oppose Bush, one must oppose corporatism & plutocracy.

[JoshK]

One must oppose, as well, rightwing control of the media, and US agression and militarism. Yet holding ANY of these positions is deemed "left wing," and we know by now that there aren't more than a tiny handful of Democratic congresspersons who would dare speak out against any of the above malignant political conditions.

So, what is the rationale for believing that the Democratic Party can possibly serve as a vehicle for serious opposition to Bush?

I am new here, but people at this website seem to understand that "Republicanism" (ie, an American form of fascism) is a profoundly dangerous force. At the same time, there are no end of apologists here for spineless worms like Kerry, who ran a whole campaign in which he somehow neglected to mention the salient fact that his opponent Bush was a war criminal. He didn't even bring up the torture scandals or the concentration camps (Gitmo, etc). He didn't portray the nonexistent WMD as a historic and monumental crime. He didn't even mention Bush's ties with Enron. He didn't go after Bush's assaults on the Bill of Rights or Geneva. How were the American people supposed to be educated about the real dangers of Bush, if the Democratic challenger was too timid to tell them?

IOW, it seems to me that people here have a fairly good grasp on what's dangerous about Bush. But I simply do not understand this undying faith in the Democratic Party -- particularly the threads that are chastizing people who dare to criticize Dems who sold out on Condi and are about to sell out on Gonzales.

My main question is, if you are serious about opposing Bush, why do you imagine that a bourgeois institution like the Dem Party can serve as a vehicle for it? Institutionally, Democrats are scarcely more likely than Republicans to stand up and say, for example, "Due to untrammeled corporate power, America is becoming a plutocracy -- and this is not compatible with democracy." Or "The Iraq War is a crime against humanity, in the sense of Nuremberg." If you can't say stuff like that -- not even in a presidential campaign -- how can you seriously oppose Bushism?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Actually, if one successfully opposed those other things

(the government-corporate-media complex), opposing Bush would be unnecessary.

He would still be a Texas pig farmer.

[electropop]

2. time to take off the gloves

While Kerry was being polite and diplomatic (and I was phone banking for him), the Rethugs were trashing him endlessly with outrageous lies. Simply telling the truth about Bushit would have sounded outrageous, but it should have been done. Right on.

And welcome to DU!

[soleft]

3. I don't think the battle is republicans vs. democrats

or right vs. left.

At the present time - it's fascism vs. anti-fascism

Christine Todd Whitman is an example of some one who seems to be willing to fight the extreme religious right. She can only do this now because he career in politics is over.

I don't think politicians are going to be the ones to look to fight this fight. Unless they are truly exceptional - like Barbara Boxer. Like some of the House Democrats.

If a dynamic centrist republican would be willing to take on the neocons and wrestle it back to some semblance of a party that exists in a democratic process - that person could do more good than anyone left of center. But I don't see anyone filling that role either.

[yurbud]

4. only two options: reform dems or new party

starting a new party and getting it to critical mass could take a couple of presidential election cycles and in the mean time, the GOP could further consolidate their iron grip on the levers of power. And not enough people may see the need for the third party, so we could end up being the spoiler.

Reforming the dems has slightly better odds, but we have to do to the corporate apologists what the GOP has done to moderate and sane republicans--show them the door.

The best way to do this is to swear off corporate money, and pledge to never interfere with a regulatory agency on behalf of a donor.

They also need to nail the revolving door shut between the public sector and the parts of the private sector they oversee. If you work at the Pentagon, you can't go to work for a defense contractor.

Another important step is to say we will never overthrow directly or indirectly an elected government to benefit an American oil company, sweatshop or plantation owner. That would do more to stop terrorism than all the Iraqs we kill and other Arabs strip naked and hang by their ankles.

[txaslftist]

5. I'm for reforming the dem party.

By the time an effective alternative party could be created, ala the destruction of the dems and permitting the republicans a few more elections while the "new party" got up and running, we'll all be in camps.

Granted, there were some organized jewish political organizations in Auschwitz, their effectiveness was somewhat compromised by the circumstances.

[yurbud]

8. these guys openly admire Pinochet

You're paying them too high a compliment by comparing them to the Nazis. Hitler's guys at least had style. Bush's brownshirts are like the extras in Deliverance.

[ProgressiveConn]

6. Yes!

"IOW, it seems to me that people here have a fairly good grasp on what's dangerous about Bush. But I simply do not understand this undying faith in the Democratic Party -- particularly the threads that are chastizing people who dare to criticize Dems who sold out on Condi and are about to sell out on Gonzales."

I agree completely. Blind loyalty to any party is wrong. It is what keeps the sane moderate republicans in their party still. If this loyalty didnt exist do you think Chaffee would be a Repuke still?

We should be BETTER THAN THEM. If a democrat is to conservative we SHOULD be critisizing them.

[King Coal]

7. You forgot oligarchy.

But you make sense.

[DireStrike]

9. THANK YOU!

I don't know how many arguments I got in with apathetic voters who said the dems were no different than the republicans.

Of course, this is not true, but the argument cannot be made effectively while dems continue to be imperialist, corporatist, and support American Exceptionalism.